I noticed that the Weekly Standard has this item about Weird Al Yankovic's new album Mandatory Fun and single "Word Crimes."
"Word Crimes," to remind, is a parody of Robin Thicke's single, "Blurred Lines." The khop is that it attacks the common abuses of the English language. According to the item in the Standard there are a bunch of linguists objecting to this kind of linguistic piety on the grounds that it's racist and classist.
World, meet end.
Following are the videos for "Blurred Lines" and "Word Crimes."
Someone sent me a link to an article in vulture.com (which, admittedly, I hadn't heard of) about some unreleased Weird Al Yankovic parodies. The article is here. I was a bit skeptical of the chances that these are real, since there are lots of song parodies out there that people think are Weird Al, but aren't really. "Cat's in the Kettle" and "Baby Got Jack" come to mind.
But these seem to be legit. Maybe if Al had devoted some more work to these they could be good parodies. But they're not there yet. The best (by far) of them is a parody of The Beatles' "Taxman"
There are several musicians and bands whose works I will buy immediately upon release (or at least soon thereafter). But most of those are relative unknowns -- bands that haven't made the big time (e.g., Bobtown, The Dusty Buskers) or former stars who (how do I say it delicately?) aren't as popyular s they once were (e.g., Dave Edmunds, Nick Lowe).
One exception is "Weird Al" Yankovic. Yankovic is one of the few (maybe the only -- I'm not sure) musician whose albums I'll buy right away who is actually a household name. With that as backdrop, I discuss his latest release, Mandatory Fun. Scratch that. I'm not writing about tha album. I'm writing about my reaction to it.
MF makes me feel old. Of the twelve tracks, five are parodies. Of those, I am only familiar with one of the original songs being parodied. That one is "Word Crimes," which is a parody of Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines." And it's probably too strong to say I'm "familiar with" the Thicke song. "Vaguely aware of" would be a more accurate phrase. And that's only because someone I know posted the video on facebook with a comment about how this is a good example of our rape culture. Oh, and I haven't heard of the other four musicians and bands whose songs are parodied.
Turning to the Polka medley, there are twelve songs represented in the medley. I'm familiar with three of them. And that overstates my familiarity with current pop music. One of the three is "The Too Fat Polka," which was a hit in 1947. The other two are "Gangnam Style," which became a pop-culture phenomenon way beyond the world of music, and "Wrecking Ball" the Miley Cyrus hit which has become widely known throughout the culture because of the video and the popular reaction to it.
Bottom line? I am way out of touch with the world of pop music.
In a recent post I presented the lyrics (as best as I remember them, anyway) of the one parody song I ever wrote.
I was talking about parodies with a co-worker (whom I will call Aryeh because I feel like it) who thinks writing a song parody is easier than writing an original song. I disagree. Aryeh says that writing a parody provides structure. I think it's more accurate to say that it imposes structure.
A good parody is more than just a song written to the tune of another song. For a parody to be any good, there have to be other elements elements that evoke the original, be they parallel structures or words that sound similar to words in the original -- particularly in the title. Part of what makes Allan Sherman's "Harvey and Sheila," "Won't You Come Home, Disraeli" and "My Zelda" work is that the titles sound similar to "Hava Nagila," "Won't You Come Home, Bill Bailey" and "Matilda." And I think the parts that work best in my "Game of Pac Man" parody are the ones that clearly remind the listener of the original song. For example, "And the sign said the score that is highest is written on the Pac Man screen" which is similar to "And the sign said the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls."
But while a good parody should be similar to and evocative of the original, it can't be too similar. If a parody has too few words changed, then there's not enough payoff. I remember once hearing some performer in a comedy club doing what she introduced as a parody of Cyndi Lauper's ""Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." But it just consisted of replacing the word "fun" everytime that title line appeared. The first time it was "Girls just want to have sex." Then "Girls just want to have cock." Then...well, you get the idea. There just asn't enough to make it funny. I suppose if she had ended it with "Girls just want to have a chance to be taken seriously and paid the same as a man would be paid for doing the same job in the same circumstances and with the same experience," then it may have been funny in a kind of anti-funny way.
So it's a tight rope to walk. And it's never been my thing. I much prefer the freedom of writing something original. I can vary the melody as needed, or put in just the right number of verses. And if one verse is shorter, then I have the freedom to be clever with it and just make that part of the song.
But my hat is off to Allan Sherman and Weird Al Yankovic who could write damn good parodies.
I have now come across a second instance of a pop song rhyming "spoil it" with "toilet."
Not earth-shattering, but an odd enough rhyme that I find it interesting that I';ve come across two instances by very different artists.
The second instance is from "Weid Al" Yankovic's "Wanna B Ur Lovr:"
You're absolutely perfect Don't speak now, you might spoil it. You're eyes are even bluer Than the water in my toilet
The first instance, as all will recall, is from Ian Dury & the Kilburns' "You're More Than Fair:"
A tender moment, Don't let nothing spoil it. I shall caress your clitoris As we reach the toilet.
I'll note that the above video is of an Ian Dury tribute band performing the song. Every video I could find of Ian Dury performing this, or of a studio version contains a (slightly cleaned-up version with the clitoral reference replaced by something slightly less risque. But I still have the original 45 with the lewd version.
I was listening to a CD I got through Freecycle. It's The Bobby Darin Story.
It's generally a good CD. Pretty much what you'd expect -- a compilation of Bobby Darin songs. As near as I can tell (though I'm not bothering to look it up), it was a CD reissue of an old compilation.
But my one big complaint concerns the first track: "Splish Splash." (As an aside, I'll note that for some reason whenever I think of that song I can't help picturing Anson Williams as Potsie Webber singing it at Arnold's.) It's preceded by a spoken introduction in which Darin talks of how he got his career started. Now I assume that the intro is there because it was on the record that was being reissued. What annoys me about it is that they didn't separate the introduction from the song -- it's one track with both.
In terms of ripping this into my iTunes library, there's the complication that I have three options:
Take "Splish Splash" from another CD (assuming I have it on another disc -- I think I do, but I'm not sure offhand, and I'm too lazy to check my database);
Take "Splish Splash" complete with the introduction. That's not the worst thing in the world, I'll admit. But it offends my sense of aesthetics; or
Use software to edit the track and remove the introduction. But my anal-retentive side won't let me do that unless I also create a new CD with the intro-less version and enter that CD in my database.
By the by, this isn't the first time I've had issues with where the track breaks are placed on a CD.
On the first reissue of Nick Lowe's Pure Pop for Now People the break between "Nutted by Reality" and "36 Inches High" was placed a little to early, so if you listen to music out of the album order (either by shuffling a disc, putting it on a mix disc, or (as I do), by putting an entire iTunes library on shuffle play), "Nutted by Reality" ends abruptly while "36 Inches High" begins with a half-second of echoing guitar.
"Weird Al" Yankovic's album, Off The Deep End, has a hidden track called "Bite Me." It's a few seconds of cacophony after ten seconds of silence at the end of "You Don't Love Me Anymore," which is the last listed track. The idea is that someone who has the album on may forget to turn off the stereo after the final track. So, ten minutes after the album seemingly ended there is a sudden burst of noise. Of course, this was accomplished by making the final track last about 14 minutes.
On some reissues of the Monkees album, Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn and Jones, Ltd. the spoken word "Peter Percival Patterson's Pet Pig Porky" is part of the same track as "Pleasant Valley Sunday," while in other rereleases there's a track break between them.
Lots of concert albums seem to have incorporated questionable decisions as to where to split tracks. If, for example, between songs X and Y, the singer talks to the audience, and says something along the lines of "Now, we'd like to do a number that has special meaning for me. It's called Y," then it's best to try to get that patter in as the beginning of the track for Y rather than at the end of the track for X. When you're listening on shuffle, it just works better.
Part of my issue with this stuff, I'll admit, has to do with my anal-retentive side and how I keep my CD database. I should probably post about that at some point. The short of it is that my database is relational, and any given track can appear on more than one album. Take, for example, "Tempted" by Squeeze. That track was originally on their East Side Story album. It also appeared on their compilation, Singles, 45's and Under. It's also appeared on other Squeeze compilations, and a bunch of various artists compilations as well. My database identifies these as all the same track. Aside from helping me to know what I have, it also makes it easier to avoid putting more than one copy of a given track into iTunes. Also, of course, it lets me fiddle with music and databases. Assuming, hypothetically, that some other album has an alternate mix of "Tempted," or a live version thereof, those are listed as different tracks. Note that it's not all science. If a remastered version comes out, I don't treat that as a different track if they didn't change the mix. Mea database, mea praecepta.
Now, the issue for me, is that if the mix is the same but there's some issue with track breaks -- the end of the song cut off on one issue (see first bullet), an additional thing that's not part of the song but part of the track on one album (see second bullet), or some other thing like it, that screws me up. It also bugs me with issues of deciding whether a track is what I call "mixworthy" (i.e., worthy of being ripped from my CD collection into my iTunes library.
I was at the supermarket, and the radio playing background music started playing "I Want It That Way" by the Backstreet Boys came on. I didn't recognize it as the Backstreet Boys. I just new it as the song that "Weird Al" Yankovic parodied with his song, "eBay."
Earlier in the day I was with my daughter in the waiting room at doctor's office and Billy Joel's "Vienna" came on the radio. I pointed out to my daughter that the song was by the same guy who did "Piano Man," which Weird Al parodied into "Spider Man." Let me note for the record that I am aware that the Weird Al song is called "Ode to a Superhero." But for reference I find it easier to just call it "Spider Man." We had been talking about royalties, and how songwriters get paid when people put their songs on records. She asked me if Weird Al gets royalties for "Piano Man." She was surprised to learn that "Spider Man" was based on "Piano Man," and not vice versa.
As background, I should explain that we have most of Weird Al's work, and we keep copies of his albums in the car. We didn't used to. But on a family road trip in 2010 our youngest child (who was then two years old) took a strong liking to Weird Al, a few of whose songs were on Doctor Demento compilations that we had brought along. At one point he decided that he liked "Smells Like Nirvana," and had us play that over and over again for hours straight. Mostly he would say "again" every time the song ended. Sometimes he would be distracted when the song ended, and we would hear the beginning of the next song. But eventually he would notice and insist that we go back. At other times he wanted repeated playings of "Weasel Stomping Day," and at others it was "Amish Paradise."
But this past year, on roadtrip 2011, it was "Spiderman." He loves the character and anything about him, so of course he wanted repeat playings of the song. And more repeat playings of the song. And still more repeat playings of the song. At one point I put on the radio and we heard "Piano Man." It was during the instrumental break, and he was all happy until we heard Billy Joel's vocals.
So we, as a family, have a backward view of Weird Al. There are a bunch of his parodies that we are very familiar with, while we have at best a passing awareness of the original work. I love "White & Nerdy," while being unfamiliar with Chamillionaire's "Ridin'." And I can't say what "TMZ" and "Party in the CIA" are parodies of. Admittedly, though, there have been cases where an appreciation of one of his parodies led me to look up and appreciate the original work. I have a new appreciation of Coolio after hearing his song, "Gangsta's Paradise." I only found interest in that because of "Amish Paradise."
Now, part of that is a function of age. At 46 I am not as up on what's cool as I was at 18. When it comes to the songs he parodied on In 3-D, which was released when I was 18, I was pretty familiar with all of those. Of course, in a bunch of cases I still liked the Weird Al parodies better.
